Can The Constitution Survive?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SMM, Nov 24, 2007.

  1. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #1
    There were two things which led me to believe, that the America I had fought for, and bled for, had been lost. The first was when the Supreme Court began to base their rulings on politics, rather than the Constitution. This began, at least noticeably by me, during the Reagan years. Nancy, decked out in her red ruby slippers, waving the "Just Say No" flag, began the national hysteria over drugs. That turned the 'drug czar' (dung czar in my opinion) and his ilk, loose. They blew huge gaps in the bill of rights. The 'asset forfeiture law' is the most glaring, and nauseating example. The SC just went along for the ride. Little did they know that Asset Forfeiture would be used in 2007 to threaten anti-war protestors. Or, did they suspect and not care?

    The second issue was the near collapse of the Fourth Estate. If anyone is unfamiliar with the term, it is the press (media by current reference), and I include a Wiki-Wiki link if you want to learn more about the term. I was a Poli Sci during Watergate. The dogged pursuit by the press to expose the conspiracy led me to believe that the same level of mission and professionalism, was a monolith of virtue, which would always be our last-resort safety-net. Yet, when it has really counted, it let us down.

    The link I am attaching here, is an article of the more sinister consequences of losing our freedom and Constitutional rights. I speak to everyone out there, regardless of political persuasion. Remember, "The freedom within a society is only as strong as the freedom for its' most unprotected group". And to me, that even means traitors, saboteurs, terrorists, seditionists, ... everyone deserves a fair trail, based on the same principles and rights as anyone else. If we cannot do that, let's quit pretending and face the truth; we are not the people we hoped we were.

     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    I don't know. Though lately people are pretty lazy politically, and it seems the Bush administration is getting away with a lot of crap, people are pretty well informed. With his less than 30%, and losing, mandate it's pretty obvious the tide has turned against them. The policies are being rejected, even with the frustration with Dems, they still poll better on most issues when separating them from Congress as a whole, and even if we have to suffer with Hillary, there's a pretty good chance they'll take the WH as well. She may not be great, and she doesn't exactly have to do much to be better than Bush, but she has a lot to prove. If they play their cards right, and take longer to become corrupt and inept, we'll at least be back to where we were. For better or worse in some ways, but certainly better if we do an about face of the recent policies. If we don't, people will certainly be informed enough to be pissed about it. Especially if it is Hil in charge, the right will suddenly be up in arms over things they were fine with GW doing, and the left will remain pissed because the person they support is pulling the same crap.

    So yeah, I wouldn't worry about it yet. Continue to be pissed, hope the current Congress will grow a pair or at least slow the administration down, and hope for the best come next year. Try to be politically active and get other people informed and out there as well in the mean time.

    If it makes you feel any better, my 10 year old Nephew and I were discussing politics earlier, and he was pretty well informed. My Sister and her hubby both voted for Bush, but they don't support him anymore. Of course my Niece doesn't care, but you can't win them all, and at least she's decided to just not support anyone, the way I used to and probably will again once we're back to normal, which I see us going towards.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    "This began, at least noticeably by me, during the Reagan years." Yeah, well, that's the problem with you young folks. :) You can find a bunch of people who will begin with FDR, and whose parents and grandparents started griping even earlier.

    IMO, the "Commerce Clause" is probably the most abused single part of the Constitution.

    Bottom line, though, is that for most do-good politicians, the whole Constitution is but an impediment to their intents and purposes. They don't like the idea that it restricts them in any way. And I don't even want to start to comment about the poor old much-abused Bill of Rights...

    'Rat
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    I wonder how the Constitution can survive another Republican president. Justice Stevens probably can't hang on for another five years, and if his replacement is yet another so-called "originalist" (AKA, right-wing activist judge), then we can kiss a lot of settled Constitutional law and precedent goodbye. I'm probably going to be thinking about this issue more than any other when it comes time to mark my scorecard next November.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    "AKA, right-wing activist judge"

    I can't help but chuckle, given how many people have griped about left-wing activist judges.

    I dunno. I sorta wish there were a constitutional requirement for all judges to have some intense study of dictionary, semantics, and the history of word usage. Probably help both sides of political arguments.

    Edwin Newman for resident amicus curiae.

    'Rat
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    Edwin Newman -- now there's a name out of the past! Excellent book. Haven't thought about it for years.

    A lot of people say a lot of things. No doubt, we've seen ideological thinkers on both sides of the fence. But I don't believe there's much dispute about the ideology of at least four of the sitting Supreme Court justices, who claim adherence to a very controversial judicial philosophy. I don't have much trouble with one, two, or even three of them sitting on the Court, but we're now one seat away from them having an unassailable majority for the next 10-20 years at least. No ideology, left, right or indifferent, should dominate the Court that way.
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    Maybe what we need for a majority on the Court is a bunch of militant middle-of-the-roaders. :D

    Of course, my general opinion of all of government is that gridlock is the best answer...

    'Rat
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
  9. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #9
    Its clear it has been chipped away by both sides for their own purposes for decades even more. The current administration shows what can be done when 1 party runs 3 branches. Scary even as a former republican supporter. What happen to moderation?

    P.s. coming by way of new iMac:apple:
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Surely it is open to any President to increase the number of judges on the SC to avoid such long-term inbuilt bias? Wouldn't 12 be a better number anyway, as these days, with an odd number, it seems to be one member doing all the choosing.
     
  11. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    What happens if its a 6-6 vote?

    Who picks the other 3 justices? Bush before he leaves office? Or the next President? What if its another Republican?
     
  12. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #12
    Congress sets the number of Justices, and the President nominates new ones. You can bet there's no way a Democrat-controlled Congress would hand new openings to Bush. Those nominations would of course have to be confirmed by the Senate, but they wouldn't want to risk it.

    FDR pushed for expanding to 15, but it was viewed as a political move to support his policies, and was defeated by Congress.
     
  13. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #13
    Congress chooses the number of judges and courts that exist at the federal level. The Constitution only requires one Supreme Court, which needs to only have a Chief Justice. Could you imagine John Roberts running the entire nation's docket.:eek:

    In any case skunk, it isn't usually just one person who makes the decision. Most majority opinions that are issued by the Supreme Court require extensive back and forth. In many cases, the justice who writes the opinion doesn't fully agree with half of it, as the other justices have forced him/her to repeatedly change the opinion.
    Actually, for a long time there were only 8 justices on the Supreme Court. In the event of a tie, the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, making the respondent the automatic victor (as the lower court agreed with the respondent's claim).

    Well, it depends on when the new judges are to be appointed. Congress might say that one justice will be added each year from January 21st, 2009 to January 19th, 2013;).
     

Share This Page